Heard Sri Anand Mohan Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Karuna Nand Bajpai, learned A.G.A. for the respondents and perused the record.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant Arun Kumar Trivedi, husband of opposite party no.2, Smt. Prerna Trivedi for quashing of Complaint Case No. 1239 of 2009, Smt. Prerna versus Arun Kumar Trivedi, under Section 12, the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, P.S. Govind Nagar, District Kanpur Nagar pending in the Court of Metropolitan Magaistrate, Xth Kanpur Nagar and for stay of the further proceedings in the aforesaid complaint case.
The contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that the wife opposite party no.2, Prerna is harassing him by filing following cases against him. (I) Case Crime no. 72 of 2008, under Section 498-A and 323 IPC and Section ¾ Dowry Prohibition Act, at P.S. Barra, District Kanpur Nagar in which proceedings have been stayed by the High Court vide order dated 26.11.2008, in Criminal Misc. Application No. 32764 of 2008; (II) Case Crime No. 08 of 2007, under Sections 498-A, 323 and 506 IPC and Section ¾ Dowry Prohibition Act, at P.S. Govind Nagar, District Kanpur Nagar in which final report has been submitted; and (III) Case No. 54 of 2008, under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed for maintenance.
It is submitted that the aforesaid proceedings have been initiated by opposite party no.2, the wife of the applicant, as such they are illegal, unjust, unwarranted and unsustainable in the eye of law. It is on the aforesaid ground that the learned counsel for the applicant prays for quashing of the aforesaid Complaint Case No. 1239 of 2009, Smt. Prerna versus Arun Kumar Trivedi, under Section 12, the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, P.S. Govind Nagar, District Kanpur Nagar.
Learned AGA submits that the offences in which the FIRs were lodged are separate for offences under different Sections for offences committed by the applicant and the present application appears to be premature having not filed challenging the validity and correctness of any order by which the applicant might be aggrieved.
In the first FIR the proceedings have been stayed by the High Court vide its order dated 26.11.2008 in Criminal Misc. Application No. 32764 of 2008 and in the second case, an additional offence under Section 506 IPC was added, which was not in the earlier FIR, final report has been submitted by the Investigating Officer. In so far as case under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is concerned, the same is pending in the Court below.
Recently, the Apex Court has observed that maintenance should be paid to the wife according to the status she was enjoying in her In-law's house. In the facts and circumstances of the case, two of the cases arising out of the FIRs are not proceedings, hence it can not be said that the applicant is being harassed merely because the wife is demanding maintenance.
While deciding cases in which the maintenance is involved the Court has to act with human heart and mind. The applicant has one daughter which he has already snatched away from the wife and it was alleged in one of the FIRs that he was trying not to only kill away the wife but also the daughter. The maintenance is now a legal right of the wife recognized in India, therefore, until and unless there are very cogent and strong grounds, the Courts normally should not interfere in such proceedings. The oppressed woman has been conferred with special rights by the legislation in its wisdom under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 to got justice. The applicant has not filed copies of the FIRs. The present application appears also to be premature.
For all the reasons stated above, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the matter in its discretionary and extra ordinary powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
The application is accordingly, rejected.
Dated 21.1.2010 CPP/-